Colonialism in India initiated fundamental changes in patterns
of resource use, notably forests, and has been described by some
workers as a watershed in the history of the
subcontinent (Gadgil and Guha, 1992). Prior to the arrival of the
British, forest land was a common property resource. Far from
being an open-access system that Hardin (1968) describes, Indias
forests were managed, and their use was strictly mediated by
social institutional structures such as caste (Gadgil and Guha,
1992) and cultural traditions (Gadgil et al, 1993).

In east India the area under forest began to shrink as part of
the process of colonialism. The British empowered local zamindars
(landowners/landlords) to tax and control indigenous communities
during the nineteenth century, and encouraged local communities
to clear forest for cultivation. Sometimes the clearing of forest
for agricultural land was undertaken by migrant tribal labourers,
such as the Santals in West Bengal, and financed by the zamindar
until the land became productive. In this way, forest loss
facilitated the creation of villages which then became subject to
the collection of revenue (Poffenberger, 1995).

As the process of colonialism advanced, natural resources came
to be increasingly commodified, and, in serving the needs of the
empire, began to flow out of the subcontinent. Trees such as
Indian teak were highly prized, notably at times of conflict,
such as the Napoleonic war, and facilitated the maritime
expansion (Gadgil and Guha, 1992). Perhaps the most notable
resource intensive undertaking by the Raj, was the use of timber
in the construction of the Indian railway system. In the fifty
years between 1860 and 1910, railway track increased from 1349
Kms to 51,658 Kms (Government of India, 1964). For every mile of
track laid, 860 sleepers were required, which had an expected
lifespan of approximately 12 to 14 years. In the 1870s, it
was calculated that every year one million sleepers were needed.
Indian trees, particularly sal, (Shorea robusta), deodar,
(Cedrus deodara) and teak, (Tectona grandis) were
preferred as sleepers, for their perceived strength over other
Indian timbers, so it was these three species that were
intensively exploited. Much sal (Shorea robusta), was
extracted from the forests of the Jungle Mahals of West Bengal
and Bihar for the construction of local railway lines, and the
main line Bengal-Nagpur railway in 1898 (Poffenberger, 1995).
While sal was initially found to occur in abundance near to the
sites of railway construction in the Indian peninsular, its
overharvesting necessitated procuring other species, notably
deodar from the forests of the north-west Himalaya (Gadgil and
Guha, 1992). The demand for timber, most notably for railway
expansion was seen to intensify and necessitated extraction of
timbers much further afield, whilst also stimulating and
facilitating commercial demand. In some zamindaries, such as
Midnapore in West Bengal, timber merchants rushed to purchase and
lease large tracts of forest land, reflecting the increasing
value of forests (Poffenberger, 1995).

Somewhat inevitably, the Raj experienced a resource crunch,
and the intensive extraction of a few species could not be
sustained indefinitely. The shortage of useful timber created by
the demand for rail expansion was the first indication that,
contrary to the belief of the time, Indias forests were
inexhaustible. The prospect of a diminishing resource base and a
need for plentiful raw materials on which to expand the empire
must have been behind the colonial drive to manage and control
forest resources more effectively. To achieve this aim would
necessitate the creation of a suitable organisation, thus in 1864,
the Forest Department was formed.

As Gadgil and Guha (1992) point out, for the Forest Department
to function effectively, required legislation that curtailed the
hitherto unrestricted access of rural communities to forest. Ten
years after the British had first issued a memorandum that
regulated the movement of forest dwellers within the forests of
India, the Forest Act of 1865 was introduced (Mohapatra, 1997).
The act empowered the government to appropriate any land covered
with trees, however, notification could only be effected, if
existing rights of individuals and communities were not impinged
upon (Mohapatra, 1997). This initial act was superseded by a more
inclusive piece of legislation, in the Indian Forest Act of 1878,
which was particularly concerned with removing the ambiguity
about the absolute proprietary right of the state.
The new act was designed to facilitate strict state control over
forest resources, and was distinctly annexationist in
nature. Baden-Powell, in whose charge the drafting of the forest
act lay, put forward a legal sleight of hand that
sought to remove all concessions and rights that were
not explicitly granted by the state (Gadgil and Guha, 1992). In
this way, the informal and centuries-old system of privileges
that had existed between rural communities and the government,
were actually rescinded. As Gadgil and Guha (1995) comment, the
large-scale annexation of Indian forests by the colonial state
constituted a critical turning point, politically, socially and
ecologically; politically, because the monopolistic claim to the
forests represented an unprecedented expansion of state power and
intervention, with a corresponding curtailment of local
communities rights. Socially, in that traditional patterns
of resource use were disrupted by the restrictions to local
access, and ecologically, as the forests were undergoing a
process of commodification, which would transform their nature.

State control, which was a critical feature of the 1878 Forest
Act, also facilitated the development of scientific forestry.
Dietrich Brandis was the first Inspector General of Forests, and
is widely regarded as laying the foundations of modern forestry,
indeed, he is often paid tribute as the Father of Indian
Forestry (Chaturvedi, 1998). Brandis was a botanist from
Bonn University, and Germany was considered the leading European
country in forest management of the time. One of the first tasks
undertaken by the newly-formed Forest Department, was to survey
and map the forests of India. Forests were demarcated so that
management plans, or working plans could be formulated (Sagreiya,
1967).

According to the 1878 Forest Act, three types of forest were
to be designated; Reserved, protected, and village. Reserved
forests were deemed the most commercially valuable and amenable
to sustained exploitation. Overall state control of reserved
forests was sought, which involved either the relinquishment, or
transferral of other claims and rights, although very
occasionally, limited access was granted. Legally, channels to
contest the reservation of forests existed, though rural
communities had little experience with legal procedures, and
illiterate villagers were often unaware that a survey and
demarcation was in process (Poffenberger et al, 1998). Protected
forests were similarly state controlled, but some concessions
were granted, conditional to the reservation of commercial tree
species, when they became valuable. Protected forests could also
be closed to fuelwood collection and grazing, whenever it was
deemed necessary to do so. As timber demand for empire increased,
it was found the limited control the state had granted itself to
be inadequate, thus many protected forests were re-designated as
reserved forests. The act also provided for a third designation
of forests in its constitution, village forests, though according
to Gadgil and Guha (1992), this was not exercised by the colonial
government over most of India. The area of forest appropriated by
the state in 1878 was 14,000 square miles, which had increased to
81,400 and 3300 square miles, for reserved and protected forests
respectively, by 1900 (Stebbing, 1922). In east India, state
appropriation of forest land often involved the dispossession of
adivasi communities' ancestral land. In the Singhbum District of
Bihar, large-scale encroachment by the Forest Department in the
late nineteenth century dispossessed the Ho tribe from their
villages and surrounds in an attempt to demarcate a reserve
forest. The reservation was noted by the Settlement officer of
the day as 'one great encroachment', and created conflict between
the Ho and Forest Department which escalated into a 'tree war',
one that still periodically erupts (Corbridge and Jewitt, 1997).

The colonial approach to forestry was strengthened in 1894, on
the advice of the German agriculturist Voelcker, who stressed the
importance of good forest cover, to avoid environmental
degradation that might otherwise impact upon taxable,
agricultural output. The legislation generated from this advice
became known as the Voelcker Resolution, and followed the above
designations for forests; Reserved, Protected, Village, plus
another, Private. Commercial production of timber was the main
policy thrust, but some concessions to the ecological function of
forest were also tacitly acknowledged. This act consequently
served as a model for forest policies in other colonies (Sagreiya,
1967).

From Gadgil and Guha, (1992). Original Source: Compiled from Indian
Forest Statistics, 1939-40 to 1944-45 (Delhi, 1949).

The mapping of Indias forests allowed the implementation
of scientific management. The dominant paradigm of scientific
management was to pursue the maximum sustainable yield, and
management practices were organised around this principle. In
deforested areas, commercially valuable species were planted (Sagreiya,
1967), while in some cases, mixed forests were felled to be
replaced with marketable monocultures. In serving the interests
of the colonial rulers, forest management, and its associated
restrictions of access to local communities, resulted in, as
described by Sagreiya (1967), a steady build up of forest
capital. The forest capital was somewhat depleted during
World War One, but regenerated through intensive management,
until deforestation occurred again during World War Two, this
time far beyond its sustained production (Sagreiya, 1967). Table
2.1 shows the recorded harvest of timber from Indian forests
between 1937-1945. An increase of 65% outturn over
the war period belies the timber not accounted for, which, by all
accounts is considerably, though unknowably greater, when timber
procured from other sources is also considered (Gadgil and Guha,
1992). Gadgil and Guha also point out that as the war proceeds,
the area covered by working plans diminishes, indicating an
increase in fellings from areas not covered with working plans,
which would have been unaccountable.

In 1947, the year of Independence, the forest resources of
India were considerably depleted. As Gadgil and Guha (1995) note,
it was at this low point that the British departed. It was now
left to India to re-organise the pattern of resource use, and
take over the management of the forests.